Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_1795-1.JPG

Nellis_14_1899-1.JPG

Nellis_14_1238-1.JPG

Nellis_14_1119-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





A "European Army" is now a real possibility

This is a discussion on A "European Army" is now a real possibility within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by My2Cents Shouldn’t he have used Latin to speak to god? Charles V was deeply embedded into the ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 1st, 2012   #91
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,916
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Shouldn’t he have used Latin to speak to god?
Charles V was deeply embedded into the Spanish catholic church, to the point where he lived his last years in a villa attached to a Hyronomite cloister.

Of course there are different versions of that quote too. The second version would be hablo latín con Dios, italiano con los músicos, español con las damas, francés en La corte, alemán con los lacayos e inglés con mis caballos, the third version would be Alemán con los soldados, Inglés con los perros, Francés con las señoras, Italiano con los embajadores, Español con Dios.

The second version is the one that's been made official by said cloister. Latin with god, italian with the musicians, spanish with the women, french at the court, german with the servants and english with the horses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatmaster View Post
Latin, Spanish, France, Dutch/Flemish, British (Or Britannic) where languages spoken by most nobles regardless of origin in medieval Europa.
To quote Charles V on that - supposedly, according to Pierre de Bourdille, after being asked to speak French:
entiéndame si quiere, y no espere de mi otras palabras que en mi lengua española, la cual es tan noble que merece ser sabida y entendida de toda la gente cristiana.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2012   #92
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,645
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9 View Post
I have colossal doubts about Germany joining the Anglo-French wagon of unified command structure. See the history of Germans (Germanic tribes) from the fall of western roman empires by their hands till today.
What? You've got that back to front! German armed forces have operated entirely in unified international command structures since being reconstituted after WW2. The W. European countries that have kept the greatest military independence have been the UK & (even more) France.

Germany's only caveat about unified military commands is its wish to be able to avoid getting dragged into wars it'd rather keep out of. It does not seek military independence.

You're looking at a past which is so distant as to be irrelevant to justify a false view of the present. Does anyone cite Rome as relevant to the Italian military in the 20th century? Or the stunningly victorious Arab armies of the 7th century as models of the effectiveness of modern Arab armies?
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2012   #93
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,916
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
German armed forces have operated entirely in unified international command structures since being reconstituted after WW2.
If we're pulling out the history - German troops have fought in "unified command structures" since at least the 1620s...

Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
The W. European countries that have kept the greatest military independence have been the UK & (even more) France.
That would actually be Switzerland. Post-WW2 within current NATO/EU, probably Franco's Spain.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2nd, 2012   #94
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,645
Threads:
I was thinking of countries that didn't confine themselves to solitary defence of their own territory.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2012   #95
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 246
Threads:
Do you know what with the arguments that are already popping up with regards to the merger of EADs and BAe no way can we trust our defence to someone else.We have seen many times where so called joint projects have not gone aswell as they should have remember back in the 70's when the UK and France made and tried to sell the jaguar the French rubbished it everywhere they could to sell the mirage f-1,werent the eurofighter a joint programme before France pulled out
the concerned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3rd, 2012   #96
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
What? You've got that back to front! German armed forces have operated entirely in unified international command structures since being reconstituted after WW2. The W. European countries that have kept the greatest military independence have been the UK & (even more) France.

Germany's only caveat about unified military commands is its wish to be able to avoid getting dragged into wars it'd rather keep out of. It does not seek military independence.

You're looking at a past which is so distant as to be irrelevant to justify a false view of the present. Does anyone cite Rome as relevant to the Italian military in the 20th century? Or the stunningly victorious Arab armies of the 7th century as models of the effectiveness of modern Arab armies?

Your inputs on the said subject are useful and based on the facts but my assessment on the future of unified European command structure varies from your vision. I have doubt on France, UK and Germany coming under unified command structure until and unless there is huge geopolitical necessity and that is not foreseeable any time soon.
explorer9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012   #97
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,645
Threads:
They're under a unified command structure already. It's called NATO.

A European army is a very different thing from a unified command structure.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4th, 2012   #98
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: India
Posts: 83
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
They're under a unified command structure already. It's called NATO.

A European army is a very different thing from a unified command structure.
NATO is something different. 3 quarter of NATO spokes are braced by Uncle Sam look the military budget of US and it's contribution in running the NATO. That is the best for Europe in general and EU in particular. Look the membership negotiation pattern of EU it goes through NATO umbrella.
explorer9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2013   #99
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,916
Threads:
Digging this back up...

RAND Europe, the German economic think-tank ZEW and the German Bertelsmann Foundation have jointly published a study exploring options to save money within the EU in light of the current economic situations. They have drafted three case studies on items with high return value:
  • Case Study 1 - Abolishing Common Agricultural Policy
  • Case Study 2 - Replacing national embassies and consular service with a joint EU version
  • Case Study 3 - Integrating European Land Forces

The study is available for download [here] (in English). Case Study 3 is covered in detail on pages 80 to 109.

The study basically proposes integrating all European land forces into a single Army, and then cutting this Army to one of three possible force levels (480k, 600k or 750k soldiers, from 890k) while keeping national salary levels for the personnel to save between 3 and 9 billion Euro.

The three force level sizes are evaluated based on two sets of constricts:
a) EUMS headline goal 2010
b) actual force requirements over the past 15 years

It's as usual mostly about deployability and sustainability levels regarding the above. And about how to optimize the force - financially - for maximum return regarding these.

The "middle path" (600k) in this proposed integrative cut is meant to follow currently proposed force cuts in the member states for the same timeframe while keeping the proposed force at a similar size to the US Army. The study proposes investing part of the return into force integration and equipment, and highlights that if fully realized the possible additional investment compared to today would almost be +40% (spending per soldier). (*)

--
Please note that i'm personally not endorsing this study. Just putting it up for discussion here. I in particular do not necessarily agree with the (stealthed) Atlantic Bridge ideas and neoliberal underlaying concepts pushed by the study.
In this regard i'd also suggest reading the listings of project team (page 128) and expert group (page 129) first.

(*) - note the little discrepancy between "we could save 6.5 billion Euro here!" and "this way we could invest 40% more per soldier!".
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2013   #100
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Threads:
Hi Again Kato,
that really does give European ministries food for thought in my opinion (realistically it's evident this won't be taken up anytime soon) but nonetheless, a force of that size lends real flexibility to a large scale intervention force or multiple smaller ones. However, I can't understand why they'd investigate a common EU army when surely the more feasible options would be a common EU naval task group? Primarily as you'd have thought this would have been a more felxible, useful tool then a large standing army? Keen to hear your thoughts on this.
Robmauler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2013   #101
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
I assume it is taken as read that the UK would have an opt out
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2013   #102
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,916
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robmauler View Post
However, I can't understand why they'd investigate a common EU army when surely the more feasible options would be a common EU naval task group? Primarily as you'd have thought this would have been a more felxible, useful tool then a large standing army?
Because the object of the study isn't to create a useful tool for the EU, its sole focus is on saving money. And as the land armies are - in comparison to the other forces - the one item primarily driven by personnel cost due to it's manpower intensity that's where they try to hook it.

As for the chances of this being taken up, the main ZEW author of the study has since left ZEW and currently works as the EU financial politics expert on the board of the German Wirtschaftsweise (
). Hence why this study gets mainstream exposure at all.

P.S.: What's up with those wikipedia link conversions there anyway?
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.